Wait. Games of Quarter 1 2009 belongs to?

[Solid_Raiden]

Shadowblind said:

Solid_Raiden said:

Shadowblind said:

Solid_Raiden said:

Shadowblind said:

Soriku said:
SO4 > Any other HD game in 2009. 360 wins.

This, unless of course another HD Tales game comes out which is extremely unlikely. And as regards Killzone 2, I STILL don't see what the hype is about. What does it have that other shooters don't?

 

 

 If you can't see then there is no explaining it to you. With your logic, wouldn't every FPS be the same. I guess we should all be playing Timeshift instead of Halo 3. Hey, you can even freeze and reverse time in that game so it's different enough to be the bestest! Right?

 

 

What am I supposed to be looking for?

The amazing graphics, the increadible animations and particle effects, the realistic hit-detect system, the awesome new cover mechanic that never leaves first person, the atmosphere and detail in everything in the game. The fact that everyone said it couldn't be done and GG did it. The fact that it's near impossible to find bad on-hand impressions. The online which allows you to unlock and mix and match classes. Everything is of such high quality. And that is the exact same thing that seperates the first hulk movie from the newest film, the same thing that seperates a mediocre title from a triple A. The same thing that seperates each and every game of each and every genre. Or do you think that all things of simular genres are made equal? It's the quality of everything in a title that seperates it. Do you think Bioshock had been the title it was if it wasn't oozing atmosphere and quality? No. It's the detail, the little things that make up the big picture and seperates the weak from the strong. But what seperates a good game from a bad game to you?

 

 

 

Realistic hit detection? A cover system? Atmosphere, from the videos that which appears to be one of war? Thats what I'm supposed to be looking at huh...I didn't like Call of Duty 4 or 5, so it appears to me I won't be liking Killzone 2. Call of Duty had all of it; great atmosphere, realistic hit detection (you get shot in the head you die.), war atmosphere, and fantastic graphics for its time. It oozed quality and multiplayer awesomeness, just like the first Killzone was supposed to, and I didn't care. Many people did, they had tons of fun and thus, they bought CoD 5. I'm not one of them.

What seperates a good game to a bad game often times for me is experience. When its a new IP I always look at it with a clear mind. When its the sequel to the worst gaming let down of your life, your going to be cynical about it.

Forgive me for not falling into the same hype that cost me $85 and a crappy experience a while ago. Killzone 1 was hyped to hell as the Halo killer that had finally arrived. And it did nothing.

I think we've found your problem. It's obviously not with the game but the genre. So how could you expect to possibly like a game in which you don't even like the genre. By the way, what do you think makes an experiance? Your way to general in your terms. It's all of the things that it brings to the table and the quality in which it does so. To claim that Killzone 2 doesn't bring a high quality of what it has to offer is pretty stupid or uninformed if you ask me. I don't think this game could impress you no matter what it brings to the table and neither do i think our conversation is going to keep you from saying the game isn't worth the hype every time you get the chance to as I notice you like to do.